Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[HotRod]

And who are you to make that judgement?

Any person with even a lick of good taste can make that assessment. Your opinions border on farcical and your obsession with certain characters is unsettling. A person like you is the absolute last thing Trek, or any franchise needs in any position of authority.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

No.
Thats my humble opinion.

 

[XCV330]

No.
Thats my humble opinion.

thread over.

 

[Daedalus]

We have a window of opportunity to build large orbital habitats, not to mention Venusian cloud colonies. Humanity can begin to partly move off-world. Mars and Luna are not the answers, though Luna may be a stepping stone. Theres no compelling reason to live on Mars, and if it turns out Mars still has its own limited biosphere, there's ethical reasons for not doing so.

As much as I've liked this idea since Zubrin proposed it, it's probably the most energy-intensive way of attempting to colonise the solar system. Materials would be incredibly difficult to transport to Venus unless most of it comes from a lower gravity environment like the asteroid belt. In other words, there's a logistical complexity which has always made the proposal so disappointing, and quite depressingly so. Those Earth-like conditions 50km above the planet's surface seem almost perfect.

The Moon has an near-term ROI, which means it'll see a lot more business over the next century. What Billionaire in their right mind wouldn't want to be a trillionaire? Id say, maybe, half a dozen mining outposts by 2100? It's possible.

The one place I've eyed up over the years is Titan. Abundant Hydrocarbons, mountains of frozen water, Nitrogen in the atmosphere for fertiliser, surface pressure only slightly greater than Earth at sea level. Two significant issues would be the surface temp of 93K and gravity not much different to the Moon. But to be able to walk on the surface of another world without a pressure suit, wouldn't that be a thing? *thermal protection advised*

Edit: I got Zubrin and Landis mixed up, rookie error.

 

[XCV330]

As much as I've a liked this idea since Zubrin proposed it, it's probably the most energy-intensive way of attempting to colonise the solar system. Materials would be incredibly difficult to transport to Venus unless most of it comes from a lower gravity environment like the asteroid belt. In other words, there's a logistical complexity which has always made the proposal so disappointing, and quite depressingly so. Those Earth-like conditions 50km above the planet's surface seem almost perfect.

The Moon has an near-term ROI, which means it'll see a lot more business over the next century. What Billionaire in their right mind wouldn't want to be a trillionaire? Id say, maybe, half a dozen mining outposts by 2100? It's possible.

The one place I've eyed up over the years is Titan. Abundant Hydrocarbons, mountains of frozen water, Nitrogen in the atmosphere for fertiliser, surface pressure only slightly greater than Earth at sea level. Two significant issues would be the surface temp of 93K and gravity not much different to the Moon. But to be able to walk on the surface of another world without a pressure suit, wouldn't that be a thing? *thermal protection advised*

I think any large orbital habitat, or Venus colony, would have to utilize the moon and asteroids and not earth for the reasons you mention. Most of O'Neil's work on that still holds up, even though he didn't have access to information about better materials that we could manufacture today. He was basing it all on lunar glass, lunar o2, asteroidal water and iron. Where O'Neil went wrong was on how easy it would be to build the initial infrastructure. It wasn't his fault. He was getting his information on shuttle launch frequency and costs from NASA and NASA was outright lying to congress about it. They knew better before it flew the first time.

 

[BillJ]

I love the multiverse and eagerly await the day that the Star Trek franchise fully embraces the idea. Since it has always fascinated me since "Mirror, Mirror".

Over the past couple of years, I've been able to experience Superman: The Animated Series, My Adventures with Superman, Superman & Lois and Superman (2025). All great takes on the franchise that each have their own spin on the characters without steamrolling the creative choices of past creators. None of this even counts the comic stories I've read.

 

[fireproof78]

Lucky you!

I must admit that I haven't found much enjoyment in any Star Trek character after season 3 of VOY.
Some decent ones in SNW but not more.

I didn't enjoy Voyager too much save Paris, Torres and Tuvok. But, there was a lot of things to enjoy. Farscape, Stargate, Invisible Man, all were sources of enjoyment going way past Star Trek.

I think that's my biggest thing; as much as Trek was a part of my formative years with science fiction there was the next stage of moving past to something more creative. Owing partially to friends and theater experience, perhaps, but I never saw the need to keep Trek going.

The things I love about Trek still exist, both I'm the old and the new, but there is more to life than just trying to reclaim the "glory days" because no Trek fan could agree on the best TV show, much less what makes Trek good.

 

[BillJ]

The things I love about Trek still exist, both I'm the old and the new, but there is more to life than just trying to reclaim the "glory days" because no Trek fan could agree on the best TV show, much less what makes Trek good.

There's only one Trek show that really matters in the grand scheme of things, the original.

 

[Mage]

Well, if you don't like my posts, you can always ignore them.
My opinions are mine and I'm not gonns change them.

Then accept the fact that many people will say that to you, as has been happening in this topic for several pages now. You believe you are the 'be all and end all' when it comes to how people MUST view Star Trek, you consider us all wrong. Yet you keep using the word 'opinion'. You're not argueing a point, you're telling us we're wrong.
That's not a debate.

 

[JoseNoodles]

You can't kill Star Trek, it comes from hell.

 

[1001001]

thread over.

If only…

 

[kkt]

You can't kill Star Trek, it comes from hell.

To lure us, like a green Orion slave girl?

 

[Lynx]

Any person with even a lick of good taste can make that assessment. Your opinions border on farcical and your obsession with certain characters is unsettling. A person like you is the absolute last thing Trek, or any franchise needs in any position of authority.

Then accept the fact that many people will say that to you, as has been happening in this topic for several pages now. You believe you are the 'be all and end all' when it comes to how people MUST view Star Trek, you consider us all wrong. Yet you keep using the word 'opinion'. You're not argueing a point, you're telling us we're wrong.
That's not a debate.

It seems to be common on many forums nowadays that when people lack ideas and debating skills and therefore can't come up with anything constuctive in a debate or reply to some suggestion, then they come up with personal attacks.

Isn't that sad?

I used to behave in that way too when I was younger and not so smart. But fortunately I learned something along the way.

I suppose that it is this statement from me which HotRod found so annoying:
I have confidence in what i do.
In fact, Star Trek should need someone like me who has good ideas and a bit of humor.

First of all, it was a joke.
A J-O-K-E!
At least the part about me, despite the fact that I do have writing skills and is very constructive which some of my ideas for how to solve some problems when it comes to correct contradictions and flaws in Star Trek clearly proves.

But it actually had a serious point as well because what Star Trek should need is some person who cares about StarTrek as such, who cares about the characters he or she has created, who gets along with the actors, who can write good stories in classic Star trek tradition and who is not pessimistic and destructive when it comes to storytelling, and an ego-maniac only interesterd in money, ratings and how to put their own mark on the product.

I didn't enjoy Voyager too much save Paris, Torres and Tuvok. But, there was a lot of things to enjoy. Farscape, Stargate, Invisible Man, all were sources of enjoyment going way past Star Trek.

I think that's my biggest thing; as much as Trek was a part of my formative years with science fiction there was the next stage of moving past to something more creative. Owing partially to friends and theater experience, perhaps, but I never saw the need to keep Trek going.

The things I love about Trek still exist, both I'm the old and the new, but there is more to life than just trying to reclaim the "glory days" because no Trek fan could agree on the best TV show, much less what makes Trek good.

I liked Voyager in the first three seasons, not only because of Kes but because it had a good premise and likeable characters, not to mention that it was an ensemble show, not only focused on two-three characters as it was in later seasons.

I still love Star Trek as a concept but I have find it hard to like series like ENT, DSC and PIC and the NuTrek movies. They simple don't "have it".

I have this special feeling or sensivity when it comes to series and movies. If I don't like the characters, stories and scenario, then I'm not interested.

When it comes to series like VOY, NCIS and CSI New York, I took an immediate liking to all the characters already in the first episode.

The process was somewhat slower in TNG and DS9 and some other series as well when it came to the characters but there was something in those series which had what I wanted already from the start so I continued to watch them.

The opposite with series like ENT, DSC, Stargate Universe and NCIS Hawaii who I found uninteresting already from the start with bland, boring characters and thin stories and therefore stopped watching after 3, 4 or 5 episodes.

The only exception from that is Stargate Universe which I quit watching after four episodes but then started to watch again because it become a sick joke between me and a person I worked together with at that time who admitted that he had fell asleep twice while watching Stargate Universe!

I tried hard to like PIC, I really tried but finally I just gave up after a season or so.

You can't kill Star Trek, it comes from hell.

No, it doesn't.

I won't go so far to state that Star Trek is a gift from God. But it is a good concept with good characters, good stories and a positive look on the future for humanity. Well, at least it used to have that.

If you want to see something which could be regarded as "hellish", then watch Stargate Universe, a movie like Greenland or any other depressing, pessimistic series made in the 2010s or 2020s.

 

[Danja]

Star Trek should need is some person who cares about StarTrek as such, who cares about the characters he or she has created, who gets along with the actors, who can write good stories in classic Star trek tradition

You would have Trek sealed in amber and stuck in the 1960s.

and who is not pessimistic and destructive when it comes to storytelling, and an ego-maniac only interesterd in money, ratings and how to put their own mark on the product.

Show business is just that ... a BUSINESS.

Money is an issue in our world.

I liked Voyager in the first three seasons, not only because of Kes but because it had a good premise and likeable characters

Why must characters necessarily be "likable"?

Think about characters like Tony Soprano or Walter White (Breaking Bad). What about Dirty Harry or Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver)?

Dark and complicated can be a GOOD thing.

The opposite with series like ENT, DSC, Stargate Universe and NCIS Hawaii who I found uninteresting already from the start with bland, boring characters and thin stories and therefore stopped watching after 3, 4 or 5 episodes.

I wasn't crazy about NCIS: Hawai'i, either. It struck me as Amortization Theater (CBS was trying to reuse the sets it had left over from Alex Kurtzman's Hawai'i Five-O).

The only thing that was different was the setting. The characters were cliches.